I hope people don't interpret this as "Iceberg Spotting", but I think that each of us should read the oral arguments in the US Supreme Court case OTIS MCDONALD vs CITY OF CHICAGO. This is a fascinating series of arguments and discussions in a very concise 77 page (double spaced :) ) transcript.
This is OUR CONSTITUTION in action.
The transcript and scholarly debate (without taking sides) can be found on this page from the Federalist Society (I'm sure other places too) http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1788/pub_detail.asp (http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1788/pub_detail.asp)
Some of the argument is quick and spirited that references several previous court decisions that may be easier to understand by looking up:
Slaughter-House Case: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1872/1872_2 (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1872/1872_2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases) (perhaps one of the worst SCOTUS decisions to date - just my humble opinion)
Glucksberg Case: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_110 (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_110) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_v._Glucksberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_v._Glucksberg)
New York Times v. Sullivan: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39/ (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39/) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan)
Heller vs District of Columbia: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290 (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller)
Mapp vx Ohio: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_236/ (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_236/) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio)
Cruikshank Case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank)
Miller Case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller)
Blackstone's Commentaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_England)
Griswold case: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_496/ (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_496/)
Poe vx Ullman: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_60 (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_60)
Barron v. Baltimore: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1833/1833_0 (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1833/1833_0)
My two favorite quotes of the whole oral proceeding are by MR. GURA: "Justice Sotomayor, States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional." and "We decide that by looking, not to which side has the better statistics, but rather to what the framers said in the Constitution, because that policy choice was made for us in the Constitution."
This is surprisingly light reading for how heady a subject it is. I haven't heard the actual audio yet, just read the transcript, but it seems like the Justices were actually having fun at times.
Cheers
Mr Bill
And now we wait. I think I read in June they will make a decision. The decision may be as far reaching as incorporating the 2A. After that.................... ..:..